Name: Rachel Thomas Instructions: You are to interview two people and record their responses on this form. You should state their name and their comments to your solution to the identified problem. VI. I interviewed two individuals to see what their response would be to my (our) plan. Their responses are as follows. I first interviewed Laura Thomas. She thought my solution was pretty good although she was somewhat hesistant on if it could work because some people get away with it as it is. She thought it was good that DUI offenses were penalized by the amount and in levels. For example, how each penalty increases if there are repeat offenses. The reason behind that is people will see stronger, more persistent punishments rather than the same punishment for a repeat offense. She also liked the idea of detaining someone under the influence until they have sobered up. She thinks its a great way to keep already caught and drunk people off the roads.
I also interviewed Jennifer Thomas. She liked my solution and I agreed with all of the points presented. She thinks these regulations are more suiting because she thinks it will target the problem drinkers. She believes it could work because she knows someone who had problems with drinking and ended up killing a little boy under the influence. "If she had had mandatory conseling," my sister explains, "her problem drinking could have been taken care of after her second DUI preventing the death of the child." She also thinks this may trigger realization in some people. The realization would be driving under the influence is bad, and the penalties are severe because the crime is severe. She also agreed detaining people until they are sober is a good idea because it could prevent the person from harming himself, or other innocent people around him. She was concerned about where to put people in cases of huge party scenarios, like New Years. She was also concerned, like Laura Thomas, that people might be able to weed through the system and continually get offenses.
VII. My answer, based on our research, to their objections and concerns are: Laura Thomas was concerned about my solution will work for all drunk driving cases. There will be people who never actually get caught because there is no way to catch everyone. The stricter penalties should reduce those cases because the threat the penalties could cause to a persons' life. For example, a person who receives a hefty fine will be economically affected. That could stop them from acting irresponsibly and driving under the influence. Both people interviewed were concerned that people may be able to weed through the system. The point of the stricter penalties is to prevent DUIs, and also identify problem drinkers. In an article used earlier, the official suggested that part of the problem was the inability to identify problem drinkers and address their problems. The required counseling will address the problem drinkers as well as teach people who do not have a problem to exercise caution and responsibility when drinking. Ms.Thomas also brought up the fact that there are party times in which it may cause problems detaining people. In these instances, overnight jails can be prepared for such measures as they are now, and hopefully, with stricter penalties, people will think twice before driving under the influence.
Thomas, Jennifer. Personal interview. 19 Feb. 2011. This interview with Jennifer explains that she agrees with my solution. It also gives a personal story about someone she knows, that supports my solution will work. She was concerned about “party” days like New Years. Also that people might get past the penalties. Thomas, Laura L. Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2011. This interview explains that Laura Thomas agrees with my solution, but is concerned that people might still get away with it.
Instructions: You are to interview two people and record their responses on this form. You should state their name and their comments to your solution to the identified problem.
VI. I interviewed two individuals to see what their response would be to my (our) plan. Their responses are as follows.
I first interviewed Laura Thomas. She thought my solution was pretty good although she was somewhat hesistant on if it could work because some people get away with it as it is. She thought it was good that DUI offenses were penalized by the amount and in levels. For example, how each penalty increases if there are repeat offenses. The reason behind that is people will see stronger, more persistent punishments rather than the same punishment for a repeat offense. She also liked the idea of detaining someone under the influence until they have sobered up. She thinks its a great way to keep already caught and drunk people off the roads.
I also interviewed Jennifer Thomas. She liked my solution and I agreed with all of the points presented. She thinks these regulations are more suiting because she thinks it will target the problem drinkers. She believes it could work because she knows someone who had problems with drinking and ended up killing a little boy under the influence. "If she had had mandatory conseling," my sister explains, "her problem drinking could have been taken care of after her second DUI preventing the death of the child." She also thinks this may trigger realization in some people. The realization would be driving under the influence is bad, and the penalties are severe because the crime is severe. She also agreed detaining people until they are sober is a good idea because it could prevent the person from harming himself, or other innocent people around him. She was concerned about where to put people in cases of huge party scenarios, like New Years. She was also concerned, like Laura Thomas, that people might be able to weed through the system and continually get offenses.
VII. My answer, based on our research, to their objections and concerns are:
Laura Thomas was concerned about my solution will work for all drunk driving cases. There will be people who never actually get caught because there is no way to catch everyone. The stricter penalties should reduce those cases because the threat the penalties could cause to a persons' life. For example, a person who receives a hefty fine will be economically affected. That could stop them from acting irresponsibly and driving under the influence. Both people interviewed were concerned that people may be able to weed through the system. The point of the stricter penalties is to prevent DUIs, and also identify problem drinkers. In an article used earlier, the official suggested that part of the problem was the inability to identify problem drinkers and address their problems. The required counseling will address the problem drinkers as well as teach people who do not have a problem to exercise caution and responsibility when drinking. Ms.Thomas also brought up the fact that there are party times in which it may cause problems detaining people. In these instances, overnight jails can be prepared for such measures as they are now, and hopefully, with stricter penalties, people will think twice before driving under the influence.
Thomas, Jennifer. Personal interview. 19 Feb. 2011. This interview with Jennifer explains that she agrees with my solution. It also gives a personal story about someone she knows, that supports my solution will work. She was concerned about “party” days like New Years. Also that people might get past the penalties.
Thomas, Laura L. Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2011. This interview explains that Laura Thomas agrees with my solution, but is concerned that people might still get away with it.